Lesbian Journalist Appeals Human Rights Violation   Compiled by Badpuppy’s GayToday Based on a Report from the Magnus Hirschfeld Centre for Human Rights

Sandy Nelson

A petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was filed on April 2 by William Courson, executive director of the Magnus Hirschfeld Centre for Human Rights, a New York-based non-governmental organization engaged in international legal advocacy on behalf of gay and lesbian issues in connection with the termination of Sandra Nelson in 1990 by the Tacoma, Washington (USA) News-Tribune.  

Ms. Nelson, who had been a reporter covering educational issues for the publication was informed by her employer that unless her public activity on behalf of gay and lesbian civil rights legislation were ended her employment would be terminated. She refused to cease her political efforts and was subsequently transferred from her reporting position to one of copy editor. In 1993, she brought suit against her employer in a Washington state trial court, which found for the employer and which finding was subsequently appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. In a 7-to-2 decision, the state Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court and this decision was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, which declined to review the decision.  

Courson points out that the United States has thereby breached its obligations under international law. "In 1992," he says "the U.S. became a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which among other things guarantees the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and the right to participate in the political process." By its refusal to consider her appeal from a state court, the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Courson "brought to an end any possibility of having Ms. Nelson's rights vindicated under local law."  

The United States is a member of the Organization of American States, and is legally subject to decisions by its juridical organ, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has ruled itself competent to interpret and apply the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in addition to other treaties to which O.A.S. members are parties. 

Courson goes on to state: "Whether or not U.S. law immediately recognizes Ms. Nelson's right to participate in the political process, a higher standard of observance may be imposed through international agreement. For example, the United States does not prohibit the execution of juveniles found guilty of capital crimes, but such executions are probably illegal under customary (unwritten) international law and certainly illegal under treaty-based international law. Absent a showing by her employer that Ms. Nelson's off-duty political activity bore some rational nexus to her performance as a journalist, which hasn't happened, I believe this clearly is a violation of the U.S.'s legal obligations to the international community, much less its own citizens and residents."  

Courson said: "Will this have an immediate effect on domestic law? It's very much open to question, given that the United State's performance of its international obligations is 'spotty' at best. Only last week, the state of Virginia executed a Paraguayian national in defiance of an order by the International Court of Justice [note: the World Court at the Hague] to the U.S. government to intervene. The United States raised the defense that the execution was out of its hands and rested in those of the state of Virginia, but Virginia, as a constituent state of a federal union, has no international legal personality and cannot be sued in an international court. The U.S. has a very long history of pawning its obligations off on its political subsidiaries, in spite of a very well-established rule of international law that it, international law, takes precedence over local constitutional arrangements. This can only continue for so long before the country becomes perceived as a global "scofflaw." I don't think most Americans want to see that happen."  

Under the procedures established by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the matter will be examined and referred to the United States government for its response to the complaint prior to an actual examination on its merits.